During Tuesday night’s Oakley City Council meeting, the council unanimously supported the East Contra Costa Fire Protection Districts Benefit Assessment.
The District says that if approved by the public, the District will raise $4.27 million in added revenue to ensure the downtown Brentwood Station re-opens and the Knightsen Station stays open for a 5-station service model. If it fails, the District will be reduced to just 3-stations.
The District says 93% of those living within District would pay $104 per parcel while other types of improved property will pay around $175 while other large parcels will pay $250 or more. The ballots were mailed out March 13 and are due by April 27.
The action taken by the council does two things:
- Authorize the city manager to execute a “yes” vote on city owned properties which would cost the city $9,000 should the ballot initiative pass.
- The resolution also provided the council the option to encourage the community to support the measure and vote “yes” on the ballot initiative.
Vice Mayor Kevin Romick encouraged the council to support the measure.
“The scary thought is having 3-trucks and 9-firefighters covering 250-square miles on a regular basis to arrive on scene on time. It takes 5 trucks at a fire to be correctly manned so we are currently relying on other agencies to provide backup for us which is a dangerous situation,” said Romick. “As far as I am concerned, it’s a necessity that we make sure this passes.”
Councilman Randy Pope explained East County just had an event which emphasizes that we need to have a fully staffed department.
“I would say even the proposed staffing level that this assessment is not what I envision the future level being now that Oakley is a municipal city, Brentwood is growing, we are no longer the unincorporated countryside that used to be served by a couple stations manned by volunteers,” said Pope. “There is a much higher population, density and much higher expectation of service. Even Oakley having one station I think is not adequate.”
Pope highlighted the recent incident where two residential fires broke out within 10-minutes of one another. One on Jane Lane at 9:15 pm in Oakley while at 9:25, a second residential fire broke out at Caddie Ct.in Brentwood.
Pope noted that this funding source is not permanent but has a 5-year sunset clause which will help the District get to a more permanent funding source solution.
Councilwoman Vanessa Perry said she already voted yes and supports the measure.
“My husband and I already signed our ballot and sent it in. For us, it was only $99. $99 is nothing to ensure that we are safe, our neighbors are safe and the community is safe,” said Perry. “If we run out of resources, had there been a third fire, there could have been deaths and for sure a loss of property. A $100 a year is not much to ensure we are kept safe. I hope you all vote yes.”
Mayor Doug Hardcastle highlighted the need to support our fire department and for those in the community to act as if they need services, not a neighbor or someone else.
“I have turned in three different voting on this. You have to look at it that if one of your kids is stuck in the backseat of a car somewhere and they need the jaws of life. Are you willing for $100 willing to let your kid sit there 10 seconds longer let alone 3-minutes longer,” said Hardcastle. “You have to look at it personally like you will be directly involved in this.”
Hardcastle said the people of Oakley support the fire department and encourages the community to vote yes.
For more information on the Benefit Assessment, click here for information provided by the District.
March 5 Press Release by ECCFPD
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board Votes to Seek Property Owner Authorization of Fire Suppression Assessment
OAKLEY—The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board of Directors voted Monday to seek property owner authorization of a Fire Suppression Assessment that will provide locally controlled funding to prevent further service reductions, permanent station closures and firefighter lay-offs.
“Last year’s was among the hottest, driest and worst fire seasons on record, and the December rains could result in a heavier grass crop in 2015 that may lead to more grass fires in the spring and summer of 2015,” said Fire Chief Hugh Henderson. “Even with a dangerous fire season looming, local revenue for fire and emergency response services is far below pre-recession levels. New delays in response to 9-1-1 emergencies and closed fire stations would compromise public safety.”
Because brush and house fires can double in size every 30 seconds, if potential new service reductions are enacted, firefighters may need to shift their emphasis from saving a home on fire to protecting neighboring houses from a spreading fire. The District’s ability to respond to multiple emergencies at the same time would be especially hampered.
Ballots will be mailed no later than Friday, March 13, arriving the following week in a light green envelope. They are due back by Monday, April 27, when a public hearing will be held and ballots will be tallied to determine the Board’s authority to enact a fire protection and response assessment that will provide stable, locally controlled revenue that cannot be taken away by the state or other agencies.
Assessment ballots issued last summer were not counted as that balloting process was cancelled due to incomplete data, and no assessment was enacted. The new ballot process replaces the process initiated last summer and reflects updated fire protection data for many parcels in the East County area. The updated data reduces the proposed assessments for most East County properties when compared to the assessment considered last summer. Property owners wishing to participate in the balloting process must fill out and return their new ballots this spring, even if they already cast a ballot last summer.
“To ensure complete accuracy in developing the new assessment, the District recently updated a variety of its data sources, including those providing information on fire hydrant locations in newly developed areas,” Henderson said. “This data is important for a potential assessment because proximity to fire hydrants is one of many criteria used by engineers to determine the special benefit created for a specific property as a result of improved fire service, which determines the appropriate level of the assessment for each property.”
If the benefit assessment is authorized by a majority of property owners and enacted by the District’s Board of Directors, the assessment will fund the cost of keeping five stations open for five years, rather than the three stations that can be funded by current and projected District revenues. This would allow Station 54 in Brentwood to reopen. The station was closed temporarily September 1, 2014.
District revenues, which are heavily dependent on property taxes, decreased 40 percent due to the recession and housing crisis. Significant budget cuts, including salary freezes and increased payroll contributions for pensions, were made.
If the fire suppression assessment is rejected by property owners or the Board of Directors, the District will likely make the Brentwood station closure permanent and be required to close an additional station. Operational changes to call responses and protocols will need to be implemented if the District returns to the three-station model.
7 comments
This is a ” Lien on your property ” if you vote yes. The entire benefit assessment is illegal as it violates Proposition 218 directly. Read Prop 218 and see how this is another trick to skirt the law. It will be challenged if it moves forward and it will cost another large sum of local landowners money for another attempt at a band aid approach.
What is an Assessment? An assessment becomes a lien on parcels of real property to pay for “special benefits” the parcels receive from a project. The lien may be paid off by property owners in a lump sum or may be paid annually with property taxes. Ask exactly what your parcel special specific benefit will reap when the fire engines go to a crash that involves out of state residents?
What properties will be assessed? Any property determined to have a “special benefit” from the collection.
When the fire district spends money after this benefit assessment if created on outside of the district calls such as for a fire, citizen, car accident, etc. it violates proposition 218. This will happen because there is no way to separate and document where every penny of this assessment goes to each parcel.
Save the district more wasted time and wasted money. Forget about Dave and Steve disagreements. This district will violate Prop 218 the minute it creates a benefit assessment under the current circumstances. Vote No.
“Pope noted that this funding source is not permanent but has a 5-year sunset clause which will help the District get to a more permanent funding source solution.”
Who does Mr. Pope think he is fooling? The district has ALREADY had YEARS to figure out a funding solution and they have done NOTHING. ZERO.
Does anyone actually think they will figure out a solution within 5 more years? Hell no!
Let’s look at ACTION over broken promises. Would Mr. Pope like to debate the documented history of this fire district under control of these directors? This latest stunt is just a last ditch effort to put us deeper in a hole. Just watch, if this passes. They will never give it up.
They say the district is on life support? I say let’s stop the bleeding, not make it worse with a bandaid on a terminal sickness. If this district gets a 5 year reprieve it only kicks the can down the road that much further.
Oh well I voted NO today and hope many more people will too.
One of Randy Popes first votes came when he was just appointed and he was not apart of the process leading up to putting this on the ballot. he can hardly be blamed for fooling the public other than with his comments after the fact.
What action of “broken promises” are you referring to? Everything the District has said would happen over the last 3 years has happened.
Wouldn’t this be a conflict, since some of the council members voting also sit on the fire board? This would likely apply to Brentwood council members whom also serve in both roles.
If a lawsuits does arise, there is no shortage of challenges and questionable practices by this board for legal review.
A NO VOTE is the only way to force the county to resolve this. So many laws have already been broken since the formation of this district. False promises by the fathers and mothers of the district from day one. All they can do is intimidate and scare with threats unless you give them more than they already get. Like it was said before, supporting this mess is money down the toilet. Send this back to the founders and have them redo their huge mistake. County Supervisors need to step up to the plate.
Mr. Pope ,
Did you excuse yourself from this action ? If not, you are in violation of the law. Same goes for Brentwood council people too. This is how this entire process is wrong.
Wouldn’t this apply to Joel Bryant as well? Seems like you are a troll to me.
Come on Jim, are you illiterate? Read past the first sentence. Both are breaking the law if they involve themselves in anyway through their city councils. Conflicts of interest are screaming illegal.
Comments are closed.